Sharjeel Imam: Six Years In Jail And The Question Of Unequal Justice

On January 29, a press conference was held at the Press Club of India, New Delhi by concerned citizens who came together to mark six years of Sharjeel Imam’s incarceration, and demanded release of all political prisoners.

The panelists at the media conference included Imam’s brother Muzammil Imam; advocates Nizamuddin Pasha and Adhmad Ibrahim, Sharjeel Imam’s legal counsel; senior journalists Saba Naqvi and Aditya Menon; JNUSU secretary Danish Ali; Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Kumar Jha; professors Nandita Narain and Apoorvanand; Karwan-e-Mohabbat founder Harsh Mander; Najmuddin, a family member of the incarcerated Athar Khan; and Mohammad Aamir Khan, who was 18 when he was allegedly framed in a terrorism case and later acquitted after 14 years.

The panel expressed distress and disappointment regarding the judicial process, characterising it as a system of inconsistent rulings where the conclusion of guilt often feels decided beforehand, much like the “Trial of the Knave” in Alice in Wonderland. They highlighted a disturbing lack of "equality before the law,” noting that while convicts in heinous cases, such as those involved in the Bilkis Bano case or Ram Rahim case, have been granted thousands of days of parole or early release for “good conduct”, Sharjeel Imam has not stepped out of jail once in six years.

Politics and polarisation

Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Kumar Jha says while he cannot put a timeline on how long it will take to address the damage done since 2014, he sees a growing public shift towards concerns of everyday survival — jobs, livelihoods, and economic insecurity. He said there has been a “concerted attempt” to push these basic issues out of view under a “camouflage” of religious polarisation, but added that this style of politics now appears to be losing its hold.

Upon being asked about the election results in Bihar, Jha states, “One thing is for sure. There was no level playing field in Bihar. Rs 10,000 for changing the entire course of the election, when there is no level playing field, you don't contest an election, you become part of this election.”

Imam, an IIT Bombay graduate, was pursuing his doctoral research at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, before getting arrested in January 2020. He was arrested on the charges of sedition, allegedly promoting enmity between groups. He was also charged with making alleged inflammatory speeches, with cases filed against him across five states, which included Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, and Arunachal Pradesh. One of the speeches, infamous as the chicken neck speech, called for chakka jam, a peaceful road blockade in support of the anti-CAA protests.

The same year the Delhi riots happened in February which resulted in the death of 54 people. He was later booked under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), for alleged co-conspiracy in the riots.

“The situation of Muslims has come to a point where even saying ‘Asalam Walekum’ creates fear,” said Muzammil Imam at the press conference.

Recounting his experience, Muzammil alleged he was severely tortured in jail. He says he was forced to lie naked on the floor for nearly ten hours, during which the police allegedly recorded him in that state. He further claims that he was chased by police across an open field, where officers allegedly told him they would “encounter” him.

“I have no kind of fear left in me anymore. Anyone can die at any moment. Everyone will face death, it can happen any moment, so stop living out of fear of a government or an institution,” he says.

Muzammil explained his decision to speak publicly came despite repeated pleas from his mother and uncle, who begged him not to come forward out of fear that he too would be taken away. He says he consoled them by telling them that they had nothing left to lose.

In the current climate, Muzammil says, if a Muslim opens their mouth even slightly, the consequences are already known.

Muzammil further argues that when a Muslim expresses themselves in their own way, rather than conforming to a "so-called secular point of view," their perspective is rejected by society. He challenges the existence of a "set of rules" or specific parameters in politics and activism that dictate how a person should speak, questioning who has the authority to decide these rules for a citizen of India.

Civil disobedience is not violence

Upon being asked whether Sharjeel Imam’s way of expressing his ideas have been controversial and unconstitutional, Professor Apoorvanand told Outlook, “What Sharjeel was saying was not at all unconstitutional and he did not ask for violence. He did not tell people to resort to violence. He asked people to do civil disobedience which I think is a legitimate instrument when you as the citizen of the country are against something you think is illegal or unconstitutional.” He adds, "I don't understand why Sharjeel Imam is being portrayed as a dangerous man... You have a discussion with him. You have a debate with him. And you defeat him in his debate"

According to Prof. Apoorvanand, Sharjeel is an intellectual analysing the political status of Muslims in post-independence India, and it is a mistake to label him an "architect of terrorism" simply for expressing these views.

He further added, “Sharjeel has not spread hatred against any community, I will ask you something. Has he ever spoken against Hindus? You know the answer very well. He was treated as if he was a very dangerous terrorist... Six states instituting FIRs against a man... an unarmed non-violent man".

Inconsistent judiciary?

Professor Nandita Narain expressed her deep sense of frustration, stating that despite the presentation of logic, facts, and arguments, everything seems to be failing because the judiciary is inconsistent in its rulings.

“It is like the 'Trial of the Knave' in Alice in Wonderland, where you have to decide that someone is guilty regardless of the case.”

While she maintains some hope, she feels her heart sink whenever those responsible for protecting liberty fail to uphold the constitutional principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity.

She specifically critiqued the absence of “equality before the law,” saying, “At the very least, the judiciary should uphold ‘equality before the law’… but the judge who ordered an FIR against those who raised the ‘Goli Maro’ slogan was transferred overnight.”

Addressing the shift in political atmosphere, senior journalist Saba Naqvi said, "Now people are proudly declaring they will remove Muslims... now institutional public declarations are beneficial". She quotes the rhetoric of Himanta Biswa Sarma: "Don't give money to Miyan people; if the bill is ₹5, you give them 4. We will drive them away". She adds that there is a plan to "remove 4 lakh people from the voter rolls"

Adv. Nizamuddin Pasha argues that when a specific identity is under attack, one must question whether the members of that identity are provided the political space to raise their voices. He asserts that tolerance for “Muslim identity politics” is extremely narrow across the entire Indian political spectrum.

Pasha critiques the “liberal discourse” for failing to provide space for a distinct Muslim political identity. He notes that Imam is not viewed through the same lens as other activists because his politics is unapologetically “Muslim politics”.”

Six years on, Sharjeel Imam’s incarceration stands as a reminder of how punishment in India often begins long before a verdict is delivered. In his case, guilt appears to have been assumed, while the process itself becomes the penalty — endless hearings, years of confinement even when the trial has not even begun. What unfolds is not merely a legal battle but a living, breathing nightmare, where liberty is suspended permanently and the promise of “innocent until proven guilty” collapses under the weight of prolonged incarceration.

The question the panel leaves unanswered is no longer only about Imam, but about what justice means when time itself is weaponised against the accused. This generation must prepare the next generation so that future generations do not look back and ask, "What were you doing?"